tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 15 14:19:56 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Deixis and direction
jatlh charghwI':
> > puq QupvaD betleH nob HoD.
> > puq Qupmo' betleH nob HoD.
> >
> > We don't have one sentence with a syntactically significant
> > indirect object
> > and one with a syntactically significant reason. We have two
> > sentences with
> > "header" noun phrases.
>
> I do find this interesting. I can definitely see this as one valid
> interpretation among other valid interpretations.
That's odd, since you have been vehemently rejecting the possibility of
interpreting it this way up to now. Ah, you're setting yourself up as The
Reasonable Guy, now that you have a new argument! Okay, let's get to that.
> Meanwhile, I do see some
> potential examples that might call this into question.
>
> puq QupvaD lurDech ngo'mo' betleH nob HoD.
>
> puq tInvaD puq machvaD je lurDech ngo'mo' betleH nob HoD.
>
> So, why am I driven to use {je} in the second example, but not the first?
Now THIS is a good objection! You've included /chuvmey/ into the mix, and
want to know if this changes the grammar at all.
Well, let's start by evening out the example. I don't claim that /<noun
phrase> <noun phrase> je/ is necessarily identical in grammar to /<noun
phrase>/. Clearly, you've got something else in the mix. I don't claim
that all noun phrases, no matter how many, get lumped into a single
grammatical slot called "header noun." I claim that each noun phrase which
doesn't indicate subject or object is of the grammatical distinction we've
been calling "header noun." Thus,
naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?
Can we get to the Great Hall from here?
has a subject /maH/ (elided), a verb, /majaHlaH'a'/, a header noun
/naDevvo'/, and a header noun /vaS'a'Daq/. (This ignores the recent
revelation about verbs of motion. If you don't like it, substitute /yIt/
for /jaH/.
Now, suppose we have the following sentence, taken from your example but
simplified to get rid of some of the nonessential parts:
puqvaD lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD.
The captain gives the child the bat'leth because of tradition.
All very well and good. Except for the addition of an object noun phrase,
I'd say this is the same grammar as the Great Hall example, and you'd say it
isn't. Now:
puqvaD loDvaD je lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD.
The captain gives the child and the man the bat'leth because of tradition.
We both agree that this is a valid sentence. What is the /je/ doing? It is
joining /puqvaD/ and /loDvaD/. It is a conjunction. As it should be: we
are linking /puqvaD/ and /loDvaD/. But . . . once again, it comes down to
an interpretation: are we linking them grammatically, or are we linking them
semantically?
Let's take a simple sentence:
betleH nob HoD.
The captain gives the bat'leth.
Now let's add a conjunction.
betleH nob HoD la' je.
The captain and the commander give the bat'leth.
Is this not Object-Verb-Subject sentence structure? Is this not what TKD
describes? TKD describes basic sentence structure, but does not actually go
and explain the grammar behind the possibility of using a conjunction in the
subject or object position. But I see no reason to say it's not
Object-Verb-Subject structure. If you like, you can call it
[Object [Object [Object [. . .]] je] Verb [Subject [Subject [. . .]] je]
structure, but that's getting needlessly messy. In any case, neither of us
has a problem with recognizing /HoD/ as a subject, and /la'/ as a subject.
So what about /puqvaD loDvaD je lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD/? Why are you
driven to add /je/ here, you ask? Because you are linking these ideas.
They are associated in the context, and you want to demonstrate that
association. Just as I have no problem accepting both /HoD/ and /la'/ as
subjects, I have no problem accepting /puqvaD/ and /loDvaD/ as "header"
nouns. Why don't you have conjunctions for all "header" nouns? Because
they aren't particularly associated with each other in context. There is no
particular link between /lurDechmo'/ and those other two nouns.
Aha! you cry. No link! It's syntax!! Well, not as I see it. There's
syntax here because we've got the syntax of conjunctions, which certainly
seems to be a feature that Klingon linguists recognize. So if you want to
say that this shows a different syntax, then in that sense I agree. But
what we've got is still "header" noun phrases. That's all. Some are
conjoined because they are associated with each other.
Along the same lines, I also see no problem with this sentence:
Dujvo' yuQDaq je machIjlaH'a'?
Can we navigate from the ship and to the planet?
Here I've conjoined nouns ending in different Type 5 suffixes, which to you
play entirely different syntactic roles. Sure, you could say that this has
to be /Dujvo' yuQDaq machIjlaH'a'/, but I can also say that the /je/ works
just fine. They're associated concepts.
If you still think this proves syntax and only syntax (what am I saying?
Nothing I say can possibly change your mind!), then feel free to keep that
opinion. I do think, however, that this is the strongest of any argument
you've brought to this discussion (and nearly the only non-circular one).
ASIDE
In fact, I see no explicit reason why you can't say
puqvaD loDvaD lurDechmo' betleH nob HoD.
There seems to be no rule against it, but we don't want to do it, whether
because these concepts are closely related, or because it violates some kind
of unstated syntax. So let's ignore this example, and concentrate on the
conjunction.
END ASIDE
> Am I saying anything here that you find interesting? Does it affect
anything
> that you have been believing up to this point, at least enough to cause
you
> to reconsider?
In other words, "Aha! Did I getcha? Did I getcha?" Sheesh.
Better yet, answer this question: has anything I said affect anything that
YOU have been believing? At least enough to cause you to reconsider?
Though it's unlikely that you'll actually admit it, I'm convinced that the
answer is "no." You're convinced, you're entrenched, and you consider
yourself challenger of any dissenting opinion.
> I'm sure are canon examples of this sort of conjunctions,
> though I don't wish to take the time to find them right now and I doubt
that
> you doubt this, so I don't feel it is really necessary. Let me know if you
> disagree.
In fact, what I doubt is that there are any examples of this in canon. The
only examples of multiple "header" nouns in a sentence I can think of are
naDevvo' vaS'a'Daq majaHlaH'a'?
qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS.
We simply haven't seen any conjunctions in "header" nouns, whether for
similar or dissimilar Type 5'd nouns. If there are some I haven't
remembered, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out. Until then, there is
no evidence of this anyway.
SuStel
Stardate 539.0